W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:33:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4CEAA96F.1040806@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian,

Everything you proposed would be taken into
consideration.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

22.11.2010 17:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 22.11.2010 15:15, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Julian, all,
>>
>> I have read all these notes. Here are the answers:
>>
>> 22.11.2010 12:55, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 22.11.2010 08:33, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I have recently made an I-D, which, I think,
>>>> would be interesting for the WG. You can
>>>> find it here:
>>>>
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized/ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you please review it?
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Hi Mykyta,
>>>
>>> a few thoughts:
>>>
>>> - This would be interesting for debugging purposes. Not sure about
>>> things beyond that. For instance, what's the rational for the
>>> conformance requirements you make? IMHO, a server MUST continue to
>>> process the requests (because that's how 1xx status codes work), but
>>> the actual 103 message should only be a hint to the sender.
>> Yes, I have mentioned that the server MUST continue processing of the
>> request.
>>
>>     If a server sends a response with aforementioned status,
>>      it SHOULD continue  processing of client's request.
>
> MUST != SHOULD.
>
>>> - The ABNF for the header should be a list of comma-separated headers
>>> (same syntax as for Vary, for instance)
>>>
>>> - You'd need IANA considerations for the new header as well.
>> The information about not-processed headers will be put into the body
>> of the response.
>
> A 103 response doesn't have a body.
>
>>> - In many cases, this will be extremely hard to implement, because the
>>> actual handling of a request requires several layers, and it would
>>> tricky to find out which headers were processed by whom. Also, in many
>>> cases, the final recipient might not be *able* to send a 1xx response
>>> (such as a Java servlet).
>> Look here:
>>
>>     If a server receives request with unknown (for it) headers, 
>> it*SHOULD*
>>     send a response with 'Some Headers Not Recognized' status.
>>
>> If a server is not able to send the 103 code, it won't do, as
>> we don't set '*MUST*' comformancecriterion here.
>
> Understood. I was just trying to explain that for many servers, it 
> will be hard to implement this.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 17:34:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT